Support NeoGAF

[Brianimaniac]

I'm a PS4 owner too and I'm NOT fine with it...to each his own I guess. But just reading this thread, I would say you are in the minority. I'm sure it will be a great looking game but by which consoles standard?

People get so caught up in the minutiae of these Digital Foundry comparisons that they forget that Xbox One games still look really damn good.

 

[the_batman]

I was the one who asked the dev this question on the stream. He was nice enough to answer it among the sea of spam.

pretty funny gamespot made an article about it, i thought shitaku was the one that usually does the reporting without doing any actual investigating.

 

[Rajack]

Parity is really becoming the dirty word of this generation.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

People get so caught up in the minutiae of these Digital Foundry comparisons that they forget that Xbox One games still look really damn good.

Yep, both versions of a game usually look really good. But the PS4 version should just about always look/perform better. Sure, there are bound to be outliers, but on the whole, the more powerful (by a good measure) hardware should have the better version.

That's what this is about.

 

[kinoki]

Parity is really becoming the dirty word of this generation.

If your game is technically demanding the most powerful system should look better on the stronger console. If you limit the scope of your game its either from budget or art style. A puzzle game like Tetris has no reason to look better on any console. AAA-titles like Batman needs to take advantage of the hardware. What else are we paying them for? Parity for the sake of parity is stupid.

 

[Vroadstar]

People get so caught up in the minutiae of these Digital Foundry comparisons that they forget that Xbox One games still look really damn good.

While I agree that Xbox One games still look good, why then would developers treat the PS4 with same standard when clearly it's got more under the hood. Which as one gaffer pointed out, simply isn't about cost because the PC version will usually have more bells and whistles but will ultimately sell less than both consoles especially compared to the PS4.

 

[Appollowexx]

I'm in agreement with those who feel parity is completely unnecessary and unfair. The PS4 and Xbox One have similar architecture and are basically made up from off the shelf PC components. So with this in mind and the PS4s decent power advantage, no game should look better on XB1 and parity should not exist. It's like if I bought a GTX680 and a Titan and saw no power difference - I'd know something was up. (*Yes I know the power gap is not that large between the two consoles - just an example).

 

[Marlenus]

Yep, both versions of a game usually look really good. But the PS4 version should just about always look/perform better. Sure, there are bound to be outliers, but on the whole, the more powerful (by a good measure) hardware should have the better version.

That's what this is about.

Considering the hardware there should never be any outliers. We are not talking about consoles with different strengths and weaknesses here. Anything the Xbox One can do the PS4 can do better (game wise of course, OS functions are a separate thing).

As another poster said the only time parity is really excusable is if your art and design direction results in a game that does not need to use all the hardware and in that scenario you should be at 1080p 60 anyway.

 

[MaLDo]

Indeed; I have a good friend from college who has worked with Rocksteady since the original Arkham games on making the PC version fantastic from the NVIDIA side. Part of the reason developers talk about "parity" is that optimization / frame rate is the last thing worked on. So until the game is a month or two (or less) away from going gold; they have no idea what their final frame rate & resolutions are going to be. It depends on how much optimization they can ring out of the engine & platform. Since so many of these games are made on PCs and then moved over to consoles - they don't have as much of a sense on end-game performance till they get close to the end.

It'll be interesting to see how this console generation goes - will developers go for more 1080p60fps games that have less powerful graphics & engines, or be willing to go 900p / 30 fps and do whizbang new graphical stuff. Most generations go the latter route; but if GAF is really representative of gamers, then you might see a much slower move towards shinier graphics to keep resolutions & framerates high.

Good to know and the reason that makes me smile every time I read "PC port"

About target in the generation, ubisoft can't do a new Assassins Creed with worse graphics/tech. Surely the can do with worse IQ, precisely because the graphics restriction. Being very ambitious in technology at developing for current consoles can mean getting your fingers burnt.

 

[TEH-CJ]

This parity trend is fucking bullshit and I refuse to support this. Destiny, Ass creed and now this game.

for the love of god I hope this trend dies in the ass.

 

[RoboPlato]

Indeed; I have a good friend from college who has worked with Rocksteady since the original Arkham games on making the PC version fantastic from the NVIDIA side. Part of the reason developers talk about "parity" is that optimization / frame rate is the last thing worked on. So until the game is a month or two (or less) away from going gold; they have no idea what their final frame rate & resolutions are going to be. It depends on how much optimization they can ring out of the engine & platform. Since so many of these games are made on PCs and then moved over to consoles - they don't have as much of a sense on end-game performance till they get close to the end.

It'll be interesting to see how this console generation goes - will developers go for more 1080p60fps games that have less powerful graphics & engines, or be willing to go 900p / 30 fps and do whizbang new graphical stuff. Most generations go the latter route; but if GAF is really representative of gamers, then you might see a much slower move towards shinier graphics to keep resolutions & framerates high.

Thanks for this. Kind of confirms my guesses from the quote.

I'd also be pretty happy with devs prioritizing 1080p at a stable framerate for longer this gen before dropping to add more effects. Now that native resolution is do able on consoles, I'd hope devs continue to aim for it as best they can.

 

[thelastword]

Parity is really becoming the dirty word of this generation.

Yes it is, I wish we had some more parity last gen when the consoles were much closer in power. Now with the PS4 advantage, parity seems all the rage, strange times...

 

[ReBurn]

This parity trend is fucking bullshit and I refuse to support this. Destiny, Ass creed and now this game.

for the love of god I hope this trend dies in the ass.

Until third party developers stop using cross platform engines for their multi-platform games it isn't going anywhere. You better stock up on blood pressure meds, because you're going to be mad for a long time.

 

[Melchiah]

That's the U.S. gaming media for you. Heck, they've been Pro-Microsoft & Pro-Xbox, blatantly defended Microsoft even when their obnoxious policies were brought out within everyone, even those like Edge Magazine & Polygon were highly defending Microsoft before.

It wasn't until months later after the consoles were released that they stopped treating Microsoft like royalty & started singing a different tune when they realised that Xbox One wasn't going to be exactly like Xbox 360 in popularity. Heck, even Edge has written a magazine back in May earlier this year stating, "Can Microsoft turn things around for Xbox One?" with the letters "H E L P" on the Xbox One's controller in the front page of the magazine.

It's not only the US media. I just read an article about XB1 on the Finnish Mikrobitti magazine, and here's what they claimed. Roughly translated.

Kinect is an additional equipment now, and the hardware resources reserved to it have been freed to other use, so XB1's performance is almost at the same level with the PS4.
...
When playing games the performance difference to the PS4 doesn't seem to be as big at the moment as the worst Sony fanboys have declared. At least not if the recently released hit game Destiny is held as the yardstick. It's practically identical on both platforms. There's a lot of potential in the XB1, if there's a need for more than just a gaming machine.
...
It (Destiny) is also a lot more impressive technically than any of the XB1 and PS4 exclusives.
...
The situation is simple. If you need just a gaming machine, the choice is the PS4. If you need more, then the XB1.

SMH. Either the "journalist" is totally misinformed or just blatantly lies, and the use of the term fanboys makes the article seem really unprofessional. This isn't the first time I've seen the same magazine painting the PS4 as something you can only play games on, when in reality they have very similar media features here in Finland currently. None of them have HBO, and the XB1 didn't have DLNA and MKV support when the article was written.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Until third party developers stop using cross platform engines for their multi-platform games it isn't going anywhere. You better stock up on blood pressure meds, because you're going to be mad for a long time.

Then how the hell is PC immune to this "multi-plat engine"? You do realize the hardware between the individual components from AMD to NVIDIA is more significant than the hardware between consoles. It's like their priorities are out of whack.

 

[oni-link]

Then how the hell is PC immune to this "multi-plat engine"? You do realize the hardware between the individual components from AMD to NVIDIA is more significant than the hardware between consoles. It's like their priorities are out of whack.

You have to remember, NeoGAF is full of gaming enthusiasts, the vast majority of people who play these games won't know about or even care about things like framerate and resolution, or the fact that certain games have "parity"

As long as the overall sales and profitability of these titles isn't hurt, they will continue to do this, and for every one person who "boycotts" Batman or Ass Creed because of parity 100 people will buy it not knowing what they even mean in this context

 

[MrGerbils]

Anyone who really cares so much about resolution and frame rate should just get the game on PC anyway. It's silly to see console warriors fighting over a vague statement that may or may not result in a potential loss of 180 lines of pixels.

If you honestly cared that much, there's a guaranteed way to get full res and frame rate and not worry.

It's what makes it crystal clear that this issue isn't actually about resolution but actually a thinly veiled critique to motivate fanboys in their console wars.

 

[Melchiah]

Anyone who really cares so much about resolution and frame rate should just get the game on PC anyway. It's silly to see console warriors fighting over a vague statement that may or may not result in a potential loss of 180 lines of pixels.

If you honestly cared that much, there's a guaranteed way to get full res and frame rate and not worry.

It's what makes it crystal clear that this issue isn't actually about resolution but actually a thinly veiled critique to motivate fanboys in their console wars.

Another post, which completely misses the point that has been discussed on this thread.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I was the one who asked the dev this question on the stream. He was nice enough to answer it among the sea of spam.

pretty funny gamespot made an article about it, i thought shitaku was the one that usually does the reporting without doing any actual investigating.

Do you remember where that answer was in this video of the stream?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb2jO1BQimA&feature=youtu.be

EDIT: Never mind, it was right near the beginning! Who's the guy who says that though?

 

[Biker19]

Wrong. 360 GPU is a generation ahead compared to PS3 (generation in PC GPU terms) and it had more memory available for games. Cell doesn't make up for this.

That's because the cell processor is harder to code for.

Subjective and not measurable.

It's the truth. Ever since Uncharted 2, no Xbox 360 game (whatever it's multiplat or exclusive) has ever come even close to a PS3 exclusive game graphically, except for maybe Halo 4.

When Uncharted 2 was first shown, a lot of Xbox 360 fanboys started going into a frenzy over it & went with comments like, "Nuh-uh, teh 360 has teh better GPU! How is that possible? It's BS!" etc. They just simply used the cell processor & combined it with it's GPU. Xbox 360 doesn't have anything like that.

This video from TechnoBuffalo explains the whole process:

Link.

 

[Ursiform]

When Uncharted 2 was first shown, a lot of Xbox 360 fanboys started going into a frenzy over it & went with comments like, "Nuh-uh, teh 360 has teh better GPU! How is that possible? It's BS!" etc.

They just simply used the cell processor & combined it with it's GPU. Xbox 360 doesn't have anything like that.

360 had a CPU.

 

[Biker19]

360 had a CPU.

I know. But the 360's CPU isn't like the PS3's CPU in which the PS3's CPU is much stronger.

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

This seems like standard PR "Both versions will be great" statement we see from most pubs and not a Ubisoft style "we are holding the PS4 version back to avoid debates and stuff" statement.

Fair enough.
Why not use this statement "We will be pushing all platforms as hard as we can to deliver the best possible experience for all our customers"?

Parity is just disgusting. I personally would never expect parity on my chosen platform and never have. I never wanted C64 games to have poor quality music because the soundchip in my ZX Spectrum wasn't up to the job.
Vive la difference!

Let them do exclusive Kinect features or HDMI-in related stuff or Snap related things for Xbox One owners - I wouldn't bitterly want stuff like this removed just because the PS4 can't do it.
I would never want them to degrade a version on another platform because my chosen platform can't match it.

What is wrong with those of you who are handwaving by these practices simply because you have the hardware with the weaker GPU?
Fight for features that better support and make use of your own hardware instead of wanting, celebrating or being ambivalent about other versions being hindered or reduced.

 

[paolo11]

I pray the PC port for Batman Arkham Knight is Optimized unlike AC Unity.

 

[bone_and_sinew]

I plan on getting it for PC. As long as they don't fuck that version up...

 

[Nzyme32]

I pray the PC port for Batman Arkham Knight is Optimized unlike AC Unity.

Rocksteady's previous games on PC have been exceptional iirc, so I have high hopes

 

[Endoplasmatisch]

You guys! Thats just PR talk! What do You Want him to say? Ps4 will look glorious and xb1 like shit? No, of course not.

Remember tomb raider DF and what the publisher said about both versions?

"Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience. Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."

And we all know, what "gravy" means.
So, lets just wait for DF and we will see how they compare.

 

[RayMaker]

What where why who, does not really matter at the end of day,Just get the console you want and if you think a dev is being wrong because of parity or whatever don't buy the game.

But in all honesty I think life's to short to miss out on a game you want play just because maybe the dev has dollars in there sight rather then a few graphics whores.

Are devs being paid off to do parity, maybe they are, maybe there not, but until there's any proof its just another pointless assumption.


Yeah and also as the poster above me said, devs say parity with a wrong definition e.g the evolve devs also said there would be parity

 

[Poetic.Injustice]

I pray the PC port for Batman Arkham Knight is Optimized unlike AC Unity.

Running on Unreal Engine 3 should help in that regard.

 

[MrMatt555]

At the end of the day. We should get into the habit of not expecting such a tremendous difference between the two consoles in terms of 3rd party software and leave the extra horse power to be used by the 1st party guys

 

[zXe]

Rocksteady are great though. So the game should perform well. That said DX 11 features in arkham city were poorly optimised for a long time, not sure but I think they did improve things.

 

[jroc74]

I can understand choosing the PS4 in order to not deal with unplayable shit-ports like Skyrim, but what you are doing, is shitting on developers, because they want the game to run according to their specs on all platforms and not let one platform left behind like in Skyrim. So if Batman runs equally on both platforms, and it also runs well on both platforms, there is nothing rational to complain about from my perspective. And from what I've played at Gamescom, Batman already was running very well and looked great, so if they manage to polish it even more for both platforms, we will end up with a great looking, great running game (that also seems to shape up to be a great game, too, by the way).

So what I see here is a sort of mean sense of entitlement, where you don't just want developers to not make any shit versions for PS4 like Skyrim was, but to focus on the small extra potential PS4 has to offer over Xbone and intentionally aiming the game at a level Xbox One cannot reach properly. In other words: It reads to me, as if you are not hapy as long as the Xbox One version has not disadvantages, even if the game runs perfectly fine on both consoles, just cause. This, form my perspective, is the absolute worst kind of console warrior behaviour and I just cannot understand that this is tolerated so much. Of course, if the game is done, running perfectly fine on both systems and then there is something they can do to make one version look a bit better without much hassel and without any imposed disadvantages, the developers should apply this, but that need not be the case all the time and it doesn't change that developers should first focus on making it run equally well on all platforms.

I'm sure that if Batman was just releasing on PS4 the same way it will be if it realy has parity with Xbox One, just without an Xbox One version, every PS4 user would be super happy, but just the existence of an equally well made Xbox One version makes you rage (something that never happend, from my perspective, with Xbox 360 users, everything was fine when both versions ran and looked fine). This kind of inverse jealousy is despicable.

I dont get this as there are DLC exclusives on each console for some games. If thats the case, wouldnt there be the same DLC, exclusives features on both MS and Sony consoles?

I remember one Batman game had exclusive levels for one console. Why do that?

If the PS4 version could be made better, I say go for it. Sony and MS made decisions about their consoles...they both have to live with the choices they made.


I dont get how anyone could accept that if 1 console is technically weaker, games should be made to run at the lowest common denominator....just because. If there is something you could do to the game to make it even better, and its only possible on the PS4....so be it.


I said this before....lets see how the Wii U versions run...and lets see if they should have aimed for parity with the Wii U too. I am sure glad this wasnt taken into consideration with the Wii....or last gen would have sucked something terrible for 3rd party games. Speakning of the Wii U...the Game pad gives developers a chance to add something even extra to 3rd party games.....should developers aim for parity vs the other consoles and never use the Game pad? Maybe they are...and thats why we see lil to no use of the Game Pad....or not good uses of it... a topic for another thread...? lol

For me......this would still be my stance if it was the reverse....and the XBO was the technically better console.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

This fucking generation, man. The politics of all of this just pains me. Just do what you can with each box. I don't see why aiming for parity is a thing. Where was this ethos in the 6th generation?

The next shit storms will be The Witcher 3 and The Division. I can see it already. Geez

 

[Superflat]

"We are aiming for parity..."

"but hey, we don't know yet!"

Then don't say nothin you weirdo!

edit: they were talking about two different things. Disappoint.

 

[Doolz]

Okay, I see the title was edited now clarifying it's consoles only.

 

[bigboss370]

they haven't nailed down specs/haven't optimized or polished and are already aiming for parity...

that seems worse than ubi claiming parity a couple months out, they're doing it 6+ months out

 

[Ken Masters]

Another game I suddenly lost interest in

 

[chaosaeon]

It's not only the US media. I just read an article about XB1 on the Finnish Mikrobitti magazine, and here's what they claimed. Roughly translated.

SMH. Either the "journalist" is totally misinformed or just blatantly lies, and the use of the term fanboys makes the article seem really unprofessional. This isn't the first time I've seen the same magazine painting the PS4 as something you can only play games on, when in reality they have very similar media features here in Finland currently. None of them have HBO, and the XB1 didn't have DLNA and MKV support when the article was written.

And that's ignoring where they said destiny looks better than ryse and second son. "article" reads like something a gamestop employee would write in a blog.

 

[GHG]

I hope they are watching the events of AC:U unfold around us at the moment and are thinking about changing their strategy.

 

[NemesisPrime]

I'm in agreement with those who feel parity is completely unnecessary and unfair. The PS4 and Xbox One have similar architecture and are basically made up from off the shelf PC components. So with this in mind and the PS4s decent power advantage, no game should look better on XB1 and parity should not exist. It's like if I bought a GTX680 and a Titan and saw no power difference - I'd know something was up. (*Yes I know the power gap is not that large between the two consoles - just an example).

Where were you the last few console generations???

 

[Death³]

That's because the cell processor is harder to code for.]

No, it's because the tasks that are executed by the CPU and GPU are not arbitrarily interchangeable. And because the only way you can make up for less memory is more memory.

I am not going to comment on exclusives because they are irrelevant. You either have the same game from the same team under the same conditions and measureable results or you add nothing to the discussion. The measureable results show the 360 is the better hardware. When differences between the two versions resulted in "lazy devs" bad press, developers aimed for parity which results in past Arkham games being almost identical between platforms and somehow this is hilariously ignored for 30 pages now.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

Not this shit again

 

[Ateron]

How big is the sales gap at this very moment?

I don't follow sales threads closely, but wasn't ps4 at 13 million, or something (apologies if I'm wrong), while the x1 was at 6.5 or 7?

If this trend keeps up, how long until the developers just say "fuck it" let's build this to take advantage of the console with the bigger slice of marketshare and port accordingly to the x1? It's not console warrior bullshit that fuels this post, mind you. If they see the majority owns and prefers to play on the ps4, why wouldn't they cater to the majority?

I remember the og Xbox days, they we're being outsold 7:1 and the devs still managed to produce better versions of multiplats on it. What's stopping them from doing the same now, with the added bonus that the more powerful console is outselling the rest by a large margin and, if this keeps up, will probably widen the gap even further in the upcoming years?

Anyway, I don't mind none of this parity bs when it comes to Rocksteady. They've proven themselves as very competent devs and I doubt they will gimp the ps4 version. I have no problems, as long as the game runs at 1080p/30fps and they don't cut corners for no good reason. There will always be more ways to improve other than res. More consistent framerates, better effects and particles and all that. Just give me a well polished game and we're good.

 

[Omnipunctual Godot]

If it turns out to be 900p, I think Sony needs to send some technical fellows over to Rocksteady.

 

[DryvBy]

Parity is really becoming the dirty word of this generation.

I'd rather have horse armor DLC than parity. Seriously.

 

[Ateron]

If it turns out to be 900p, I think Sony needs to send some technical fellows over to Rocksteady.

I wouldn't mind 900p on a game that's completely and utterly visually mindblowing. 1080p is the ideal here, but if any dev decides to shoot for the stars and has to compromise on 1080p for that, I will accept as long as it looks ridiculously good, or so that they can achieve 60fps OR a perfectly locked 30 fps while looking amazing on all fronts.

I will never pay full price for any game that doesn't look so hot, while running poorly and at 900p: be it for parity reasons, shoddy programming or backdoor deals. Unity may fit in the first 2, that's why I have no interest in it.

I have no doubt sony will always push for 1080p on their first party titles, but I believe a few years down the line there will be lots of 900p games when devs start wanting to show off more fireworks. If the end result justifies the resolution drops, I don't mind, but if it's for parity bs, fuck them.

 

[Always-honest]

Dear Devs:

Please optomise your game for every single platform and try to take advantage of strenghts of every platform.

Why the HELL wouldn't you anyway?

 

[Spineker]

Parity is really becoming the dirty word of this generation.

Oh it will be. This will be a very common theme amongst third parties. It will be the biggest disgrace of this generation, the new DRM.

 

[Ateron]

Dear Devs:

Please optomise your game for every single platform and try to take advantage of strenghts of every platform.

Why the HELL wouldn't you anyway?

I'm usually pretty vocal against this shit, but this ain't Ubi we're talking about. I believe they will do right by the consumers.There's more to a game than res and fps. The two games may run at the same res and fps, but the power differential PS4 benefits from may translate into more stable fps (a huge plus in my book), better effects, less pop in, better AA...let's wait a while before we crucify them. If this was a ubisoft game I would be pissed already (as it stands, I lost all hope for the division, FC4 is still a mystery to me as well), but it isn't. Rocksteady are better devs than Ubi studios. I don't think they will stand for that bs tactics.

 

[Always-honest]

I'm usually pretty vocal against this shit, but this ain't Ubi we're talking about. I believe they will do right by the consumers.There's more to a game than res and fps. The two games may run at the same res and fps, but the power differential PS4 benefits from may translate into more stable fps (a huge plus in my book), better effects, less pop in, better AA...let's wait a while before we crucify them. If this was a ubisoft game I would be pissed already (as it stands, I lost all hope for the division, FC4 is still a mystery to me as well), but it isn't. Rocksteady are better devs than Ubi studios. I don't think they will stand for that bs tactics.

That would be great allready.